Re: Three more issues

["A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

--- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
> 
> la aulun cusku di'e
> 
> >  {le so'o valsi cu valsi}.
> >Am I wrong stating that this distinction (le/lei) doesn't really work?
> >{le so'o valsi} means: *all* of the several discribed as words, not *each*, 
> >so it's plural too.
> 
> {ro} means "each". "All" in logic also always means "each".
> In ordinary language, "all" is sometimes used for the collective
> meaning, but in Lojban {ro} always means "each".

If that is true then the following seems to be tautological/nonsensical:
{lo} -> {su'o lo ro} -> at least one of *each* (one)  or  {re} -> {re lo ro} -> two of *each* (one)
whereas
{lo} -> {su'o lo ro} -> at least one of *all* (ones)
does make sense.

> >(ro le su'o -> ro le so'o). Hence: {le
> >so'o valsi cu ca'a valsi so'omei gi'enai - pa - valsi}

> {gi'enai pa valsi} is not grammatical. You need a selbri
> after gi'enai and {pa valsi} is a sumti. Maybe {me pa valsi},
> but {valsi} alone is better.

Correct, {pa} wasn't meant to be part of the bridi, but just  a hint.
{me pa valsi}
{pa zei valsi} or (which I'd prefer)
{valsi pamei} or even
{valpavmei}

.aulun.